Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV21447, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21447    Hearing Date: April 7, 2025    Dept: 55

21STCV21447

Tamara Harris vs. 1485 PH LLC, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1 to preclude any evidence of Defendants’ inability to develop the property is denied. Plaintiff argues, as she did in her summary judgment motion, that Defendants cannot introduce parol evidence regarding Plaintiff’s purported representation about the length of her tenancy at the property and her understanding of the significance of that fact to Defendants’ ability to develop the property as part of Defendants’ fraud defense to Plaintiff’s claims.  Plaintiff also argues that the merger doctrine precludes Defendants’ fraud claims. The Court already rejected these legal arguments when it denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The parol evidence rule and merger doctrine do not preclude an affirmative defense based on fraud. Triable issues of fact exist regarding whether Plaintiff misrepresented her history with the property and whether Defendants reasonably relied on such representation.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2 for all parties to be precluded from introducing references to, testimony, or argument referring to the parties’ settlement negotiations is granted.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3 for all parties to be precluded from introducing any evidence not previously produced in discovery is denied. The motion in limine is not specific enough for the Court to make a meaningful order.  The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude.  The moving party may renew this motion in limine by immediately filing and serving a new motion that attaches evidence of the discovery that party propounded prior to trial and the universe of the opposing party’s responses.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4 to preclude claim for punitive damages is denied. This is not a motion in limine as it does not seek exclusion or limitation of any evidence but rather seeks to exclude a category of potential damages. This is a bench trial and the Court will consider arguments as to punitive damages at the appropriate time at trial.